tv Morning Joe MSNBC November 12, 2012 6:00am-9:00am EST
at the top of the show we asked, why are you awake? john tower has the answers. >> i'm up to see if mika lapses into an ambien and vodka moment of clarity and finally smacks joe. >> oh. >> and william in new york city, i like this new format. i never imagined that joe had such nice legs. >> you know, he does. thank you very much. thank you, john. "morning joe" starts right now. >> he is very much an intellectual, as you know, and a
scholar, atypical military scholar, and i think that is another reason why the agency fits in well. it's much more analytic organization. they have the paramilitary arm as well. he appreciates the intellectual stimulation there, the brains versus brawn, although they have it all, and the military does, too. he's very happy where he's at now. >> that was paula broadwell on "morning joe" back in january, the woman at the center of the alleged extramarital affair. and we use the word "alleged" very loosely there with cia director david petraeus which led to the resignation from his post on friday. good morning. with us on set, msnbc political analyst, john heilemann. the president on the council on foreign relations, richard haass and author of "foreign policy begins at home: the case for putting america's house in order." and from washington, we've got
nbc chief foreign affairs correspondent, andrea mitchell. the great john heilemann also here. >> we also have willie geist. >> the great willie geist also here. >> we did your show. it's a cute little show. >> it's fun, right? it's a good show. >> how's your new life? >> it started nine seconds ago, so i'll let you know. >> your swan song on friday being called by some the greatest swan song since the beatles recording abbey road. >> the "m.a.s.h." finale, i got a lot of that. >> so what's the chances that this paula broadwell, is that her name? >> yes. >> paula broadwell is on "morning joe" the one day that i'm off over the last three years. i missed her. >> crapshoot. >> she was impressive, right? >> yeah, we had her on-sped her book about general petraeus, "all in." she was on the show and we walked away impressed by her. she's very smart. she's obviously a veteran herself, has served, went to west point.
obviously, we had no inkling of what was happening behind the scenes as the great andrea mitchell broke the story on friday. >> you know, so we're going to talk about this story in a second, mika. >> yeah, actually, why don't i give you guys the background and then you can talk about it. >> i think most of us know the background. >> i don't want to hear you guys riff off things. >> i want to say one thing. like when does the fbi get involved? >> okay. that's usually the question you ask after you tell the story. but go ahead and do it now. >> in an e-mail. no, i'm serious. >> no, that's all right. >> on an e-mail. if somebody writes a nasty e-mail to me, do i get the fbi involved? >> i don't think you have a lot of classified material on your computer, though, right? >> well, this lady that got the fbi involved, they didn't know at the time. this was a fishing expedition. there are so many questions here that just don't add up. you know what i think we should do first? it's just me. we should read the news. >> that would be great. >> and then you tell me and then i'll ask the question.
>> that could be unprecedented. >> i don't like it but i think in this case. >> because then what you say might actually make sense to people. >> you have the person who knows the most about everything, andrea many wa andrea in washington. >> this morning's "new york times," high-up fbi officials uncovered a possible affair involving the new cia director. according to "the times," no one outside the fbi was notified until last week. >> so wait a second. i'm confused. so they knew back in the summer and the president of the united states didn't find out till 5:00 the night of the election? >> no, that doesn't make sense. >> that's kind of strange. all right, go ahead. >> they said the investigation -- >> do you believe that, by the way? >> who are you talking to? >> that the white house didn't know until 5:00 election night? >> i'm just going to kind of let the story breathe a little bit. >> let's let it breathe like a fine wine. like a wine that maybe is purchased in the summer. you don't open it till 5:00 the
night of the election. >> and there were concerns over security breaches. some lawmakers are now calling for an inquiry into the fbi's handling of the case. chair of the senate intelligence committee, senator dianne feinstein, says she found out about the unfolding scandal through the media. >> we received no advance notice. it was like a lightning bolt. the way i found out, i came back to washington thursday night. friday morning, the staff director told me there were a number of calls from press about this. i called david petraeus. >> and are you going to investigate why the fbi didn't notify you before? >> yes, absolutely. i mean, this is something that could have had an effect on national security. i think we should have been told. there is a way to do it. >> okay. so on saturday, house majority leader eric cantor revealed he had been tipped off about the situation in late october, saying in a statement, quote, i
was contacted by an fbi employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain director mueller was aware of these serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security. >> so eric cantor knew, and other congressmen knew. >> but no one in the white house knew. >> but nobody in the white house knew. okay. >> petraeus was scheduled to testify this thursday at a closed congressional inquiry about the deadly assault in benghazi. >> i can't wait to hear what he says. >> and share the findings of his independent investigation. petraeus will now be replaced at the inquiry by acting cia director mike forlmorrell. >> others including senator lindsey graham it's likely petraeus will be called on at some point. >> i hate what happened to general petraeus for his family and the families involved, but we have four americans dead in benghazi, a failure in the making. i don't see how in the world you can find out what happened in benghazi before, during and after the attack if general
petraeus doesn't testify. so from my point of view, it's absolutely essential that he give testimony before the congress so we can figure out benghazi. >> nbc news has reached out to general petraeus and paula broadwell, and so far there's been no response. jill kelley and her husband, scott, released a statement to "the new york times" yesterday, asking for privacy for their family. >> andrea mitchell, what happened here? the fbi's investigating this. a woman sends some -- first of all, tell us the nature of these e-mails that would prompt an fbi investigation. >> well, here's the situation. the woman, whom we have confirmed was jill kelley who was a married woman in tampa who did some social and wounded warrior work with fort macdill. she complained to a friend of hers in the fbi. that's how this got launched. she knew very well, a close
friend who was an fbi agent and said she was getting these anonymous e-mails, more than a dozen e-mails, on two separate accounts. and very confused because she didn't know who they were from, and they were threatening. >> the nature of these e-mails, andrea, did the fbi have any reason to believe that this woman's life was in danger or that perhaps violence might come to her? >> they were -- this agent in tampa referred it to his colleagues at the fbi. so it started as a local or regional fbi investigation in tampa. completely unrelated to david petraeus. the woman did not know that paula broadwell was the source. once they got into it, i think if you complain to the fbi about cyber attacks and you get dozens or a dozen or more of threatening e-mails, i am told, there is a predicate for them to look into this. >> you said threatening. you used the term "threatening." do we know the nature of these e-mails? were they, quote, threatening? >> she perceived them to be, and
they thought they were threatening enough to launch an investigation. and this had nothing at all to do with any of the players whom we know because they didn't know who was sending the e-mails. >> but we don't know what threatening means. we don't know if it threatened her life. >> correct. i have seen some supposed verbatims of these e-mails, but i have not confirmed them independently, so we're not going with those. but she perceived them to be threatening enough to ask for fbi help. the fbi began investigating. it was only after tracing them back to paula broadwell that they apparently, according to people i've spoken to, got permission to look at her e-mails which means they went to one of the courts, the security courts, that grants the fbi this kind of approval. they then looked at broadwell's e-mails, and it was only then that they discovered -- she was getting e-mails from someone, and it was an anonymous account, and they traced that back to david petraeus. they initially thought that someone was hacking into david petraeus's e-mails.
they did not connect him to broadwell, to the extent that they thought that there was something else going on, but then when they read more of the e-mails, that's when officials tell us they realized that there was a romantic relationship. that was their conclusion. >> so at that point when the fbi finds out there's a romantic relationship, were they here to investigate government officials, or were they here to investigate whether this woman was her safety was being threatened or not? i guess what i don't understand and "the new york times" raises this question, at some point they were concerned that maybe national security was at risk. >> exactly. >> but they found out that it was not at risk. so the question is -- and the question was asked by an observer of the agency inside here, at that point, why did they report it to anybody outside the fbi if national security was not at risk and this was just a private matter? >> that is the question that many people are asking.
they interviewed broadwell. they then interviewed petraeus. and all this within the last couple of weeks. they finished their interviews with petraeus and broadwell, concluded there was no further need to investigate. and at that point, should they have shut it down? they felt that they had to report it at least to clapper. but what is very confusing here is that there was an fbi agent, the one who knew kelley who had first launched this thing who officials -- law enforcement officials say acted very inappropriately and was very quickly taken off of this investigation because he had a conflict of interest because he had a friendship with kelley. and it was he who then went to -- he knew people in the house republican caucus. he went to congressman reichert's staff who then report it had to eric cantor. at that point on october 31st, it was now in the political sphere. so the fbi was no longer just reporting up the chain of command to their officials and to clapper. >> we've got a lot of people rolling their eyes around this table.
richard haass, first of all, i don't understand this investigation. so if i know somebody in the fbi, i can get the fbi cyber unit, if somebody sends me an e-mail that i don't like, i can get the cyber unit to go after them. they launch this investigation. they find out it goes to petraeus. then they're saying well, gee, maybe national security's at risk. maybe there are classified documents out there. then they finds out there asht classified documents out there. then they go, we still have to report this. but people on capitol hill, i worked on capitol hill, you know capitol hill, we all know capitol hill, this was getting around capitol hill. we've got a couple of congressmen that know. they're calling over to mueller. we're supposed to believe that the president of the united states and the white house did not know about this until 5:00 election day? >> can i just say something? it was not 5:00 election day. let me just correct that. that's when clapper was told -- clapper didn't tell the white house tom donelan and the
national security staff until the next morning, wednesday morning. the president was not told, according to all of the officials involved, until thursday morning. >> okay. so we will take the time line one more day. so the day after the election. >> exactly. >> it's still just as bad. i don't believe it. i do not believe that eric holder and the justice department and the fbi and republican congressmen and people on the hill and this loose cannon down in tampa, this fbi agent and everybody else knew about this, and nobody inside the white house knew. guess what? i heard about something like this coming several weeks ago. don't tell me the white house didn't know. that is not true. >> there are so many more questions than answers here, beginning with the question, what's fbi protocol for launching an investigation of cyber abuse? if this is all it takes, it seems to me the fbi -- the fbi would be doing nothing else than investigating harassing e-mails.
so clearly -- or nothing's clear here -- apparently some sort of an out of standard operating procedure favor was done for a friend to look into this. that would be one question which is what triggers the fbi -- >> let me stop you right there. by the way, you know what i'm going to do today? i'm going to go through my e-mails and i'm going to get 20 to 30 e-mails that are thremore threaten abusive than these. >> we don't know what she got. i get your point. >> this is absolutely ludicrous. but anyway, what's your next point? >> that's the first point. what the fbi did. then the question of the reporting. who was told when? who does the fbi have the obligation? there's a serious issue here, which is how do you balance personal privacy against national security? and what it would be noise to know is how does the fbi's behavior in letting people know and not know take into account on one hand privacy. at what point did they trip across this and realize who was
involved? at what point did someone say hey, this could be a national securi security issue because of blackmail. after you investigate it and you found out that there was no national security, why then -- i could see -- >> and by the way, let me just say, you're always concerned about blackmail, they brought the woman and petraeus in. so petraeus was no longer subject to blackmail. at that point, after you do the investigation, you find out national security's not at risk, you then decide to move forward with it? this is what civil libertarians are concerned about. and this is what bothers me. they go on this fishing expedition. it ends up that they continue the fishing expedition under the auspices -- by the way, the fbi despises the cia. it's the most heated in government. so you have the fbi taking petraeus down, a rising star in the intelligence community? the whole thing stinks, richard.
>> again, the fact that it was general petraeus involved probably certainly led some people to be incredibly careful and wary and might have also led some people to be slightly more assertive than they would otherwise be. joe, i simply think that the ratio of what we know to what we don't know leaves me really uncomfortable here. >> willie. >> andrea, i would ask you about the point that was brought up by senator feinstein yesterday and by many others about them not being alerted. do you find it unusual that the head of intelligence communities both in the senate and the house wouldn't at least hear about some sort of an investigation even if it were on a personal matter given the stakes, given the fact it was the head of the cia and a potential or an alleged affair that, as richard said, could open him and the cia up to blackmail? >> i do. she made that point. she's going to be on my show today at 1:00 because she is very concerned as is mike rogers. mike rogers is a former fbi agent, and he did not know. you know, i was calling his staff and her staff on thursday
when we first got wind of this. and we worked all night making more and more calls. and they said, what are you talking about? this is crazy. >> wow. >> it was only after we reached a very high level that we even to found -- and she found out about it from press calls like mine. >> unbelievable. john? >> i'm with richard on the sense that i feel like the number of questions really outweigh the number of answers to the point where it makes you a little bit wary about offering lots of u n pontificatory analysis. if you step back and put it in context which you started to do at the beginning, this happens on the eve of an election. again, among the many questions, jane mayer has a piece that raises a lot of these questions. it's amazing that eric cantor knew something was going on, not to come forward to it.
there could have been great political advantage in raising this issue. but a lot of people who knew to the extent that people knew, everyone decided to stay quiet. and not just to suggest that people in the white house knew, i don't know that they did, but whoever knew, all of the people, the cast of characters who knew at a time when there were questions being raised about benghazi, there was all this stuff going on, that could have been politically volatile. on both sides, in the intelligence community and the law enforcement community, everybody somehow in the space of, like, two weeks managed to not say a word about this on the eve of an election. again, i'm obviously not positing some huge conspiracy. in our environment, in our hyperpartisan environment, most people in a situation like this seeing any possibility for political advantage would have raced to expose something like this, right? general petraeus was confronted about this two weeks ago, right? two weeks before the election. chose -- ultimately decided to resign but didn't decide to
resign at that moment. was there part of the reason he did not decide to resign immediately upon being confronted on this, he knew it would be embarrassing for the administration on the eve of an election? that's a reasonable inference. there's so much we don't know because so many people individually have not spoken publicly about the chain of events and their motivations in terms of keeping quiet at a moment of maximum political volatility. >> just to clarify because i've raised a lot of questions here, my biggest concern isn't what happened at the end. i understand there are a lot of conservatives that are going to be thinking that this was -- >> cover-up. >> benghazi, cover-up, that's not my concern. my concern is the beginning of this. if i know a friend in the fbi, i can launch an investigation over some harassing e-mails that hey, guess what? i got harassing e-mails not just when i was here, i got harassing -- in a law firm. you get harassing e-mails. >> i get them from willie geist almost every day. >> so if i know somebody in the
fbi, a buddy, i can launch an investigation that starts a chain of events that the fbi allows to continue to take down i think a pretty damn effective cia director in the war against terror. >> i think given the nature -- >> this is staggering. >> -- of the rivalry between the two agencies, it would behoove everyone to know exactly how the e-mails were phrased. because if they truly were threatening, okay. >> right. >> but we just don't know. and i understand your point, but we don't know. and they could have been horrific. she could have threatened to murder her. then it's a story. but we don't know. and so it's very questionable. >> so what happens is, if you're investigating this for the safety of the woman receiving the e-mails, you find out who it is. and then you send some agents to her door. >> and it seems they did. >> and you investigate. you don't go, well, let's look in her inbox. who's she talking to? here's somebody she's talking to. we don't know who this person is. let's follow that chain to see -- come on.
you don't think when they found out it was paula broadwell that they didn't start piecing things together? wait, she wrote a book on petraeus. let's go on a fishing expedit n expedition. this is what civil liberties attorneys are concerned about, the federal government having this much power. they go on a fishing expedition. if they were concerned about this woman's safety, guess what? they could have taken care of it. and they could have made sure she was safe. but they continued the fishing expedition once they found out who it was, and they kept following it through. and then they said, you know, we're the fbi. we've got to make sure national security's not at risk. and so then they find, okay, it's not at risk. and then the questions raised in "the new york times," at that point, why don't you keep it interagency? because there's a massive rivalry between the fbi and the cia. they hate each other. then we need to let this out. we need to take this beyond the fbi, despite the fact at the beginning of this fishing expedition because somebody knew a buddy, i mean, richard, this
is -- civil liberties attorneys should be very concerned whether they love general petraeus or not. >> look, data is the big new issue. privacy is at the central of political debates, legal debates, economic debates. and i think this is -- it's funny, this is looking at the behavior of the head of the cia. what you're getting at is before this is done. this could ultimately open up a lot of questions about the fbi, about what is standard operating procedure, again, how did this thing begin and how as it played out, why were certain people told at some stages, not at others? again, this is a story that at the end of the day could be a lot more than david petraeus. it could be a long-term story. >> the fbi has a lot of questions they need answered. coming up, we're going to talk to former presidential candidate jon huntsman. also, congressman peter king will weigh in on the petraeus investigation. nbc's tom brokaw and "the new york times" gail collins about her recent interview with hillary clinton.
up next, mike allen with the top stories in the "politico playbook." first bill karins with a check on the forecast. >> good morning, mika. a lot of people off from school and work today. but if you're heading out, you need the umbrella in many states. it's just rain and falling temperatures. who's at risk and who needs the umbrella. detroit, your rain has begun. you'll have about four hours of it. same for cleveland and columbus eventu eventually. lexington, louisville, cincinnati, you're included. this cold front is pushing all the way down through the deep south with showers and storms now from nashville to tuscaloosa. eventually birmingham and montgomery. so the forecast also is going to include falling temperatures. we're very warm on the eastern half of the country, east of the mississippi. but look at the midwest. we are cold in minneapolis, denver, billings, kansas city, st. louis and even dallas and chicago are chilly this morning. that cold air is going to plunge to the east as we go throughout the day. so your monday forecast, one more nice, beautiful day from boston down to d.c. falling temperatures in the middle of the country. the northwest is also stormy.
as far as the cleanup from that nor'easter and of course our historical superstorm sandy, it looks like it's going to be pretty nice much of this week. temperatures not too cold, not too chilly for this time of year. so that will continue. there's no storms on the way for the battered east coast. a little bit of low fog there over lower manhattan. you're watching "morning joe" on this monday. we're brewed by starbucks. ♪ ♪ [ multiple sounds making melodic tune ] ♪ [ male announcer ] at northrop grumman, every innovation, every solution, comes together for a single purpose --
♪ take the long way home ♪ take the long way home it's time to take a look at the "morning papers" and start with "the new york times." new york governor andrew cuomo said he's going to be asking the federal government for $30 billion in disaster relief for the state in the wake of hurricane sandy. $3.5 billion alone will go to
repair the state's bridges, tunnels and subway and rail infrastructure, and the storm is now rated as the second costliest in u.s. history behind hurricane katrina. front-page story for practically every newspaper in the uk as the bbc sex abuse investigation deepens. the head of the broadcasters news division and her deputy have both stepped aside. over the weekend the network's director general resigned after just 53 days on the job. the resignations come amid a furor of the handling of two separate scandals, one involving late bbc star jimmy savile. he's faced accusations of molestation from over 300 people, many children at the time. the bbc news program "newsnight" is accused of shelving the investigation. "wall street journal," u.s. airlines are on the brink of the most serious shortage of pilots in over 50 years. a new mandatory retirement age of 65 will force many senior pilots into leaving the industry.
i don't get that. new pilots will have six times prior flight experiences of predecessors. this as some foreign airlines are actually paying more to lure american aviators abroad. and "the macon telegraph," judy garland's famous dress from "the wizard of oz" fetched $480,000 at auction. the gingham pinafore worn by dorothy -- >> well done, willie. >> received the highest price of any item up for bid which also included a steve mcqueen racing jacket. >> so when you get on a plane, do you want somebody that's, like, your age or younger? >> no. >> dude, i want somebody that i knew flew in 'nam and may have even flown in korea. >> i want silver hair and a 'stache like chesley sullenberger. i'm serious. >> i'm serious, too. i have never gotten this 65-year-old retirement requirement of the airlines. it makes no sense. >> and it feels like the smaller the plane, younger the pilot, too, which sort of doubles the fun. >> don't like mandatory
retirement for anything. do it on the basis -- increasingly, i have a self-interest in this. >> i think you should still have your own teeth at least if you're going to be a pilot. >> you think so? a requirement? >> there's got to be some age cutoff. i also don't want a 93-year-old. >> you want a ceiling. >> i don't want a 102-year-old pilot. >> move it up to 70, then. come on. we live longer. >> i don't want grandpa. >> a lot of folks are just getting into their prime at 65. >> i'm fine with 65. >> whether in politics -- you know. we've elected a 69-year-old president. biden's going to be older than that when he runs four years -- i do not get it. >> could we come back to the first story for a second? >> yeah. >> the andrew cuomo story. i know you're interested in false teeth. $30 billion for new york. in the context of this budget debate and fiscal cliff, one of the biggest demands in this country is going to be for money for infrastructure, and it just raises this whole question of where we're going to spend and where we're going to get the
money from. >> yeah. it's a great question. richard. >> glad i raise it had. >> food for thought this morning. >> i want to talk about pinaf e pinafores. >> we're talking about pinafores next hour. we had a perfect segue. now to mike allen, willie, who is actually 102. >> he is. >> just think what we would have lost if "politico's" mandatory retirement age was 78. >> and look how good he looks and the work he's still cranking out at his age. mike allen, good morning, sir. >> that's what clean living will do. >> there you go. you had a great interview, it's up right now with david axelrod, kind of a postmortem after the election. what jumped out at you talking to him? >> i went to obama headquarters in chicago on friday, the last day that it was in operation, all the joyful young people were -- it was like the last day of school. >> you really are 102. using the term "joyful young people." go ahead. >> they were trading gmails, hugging each other as they
headed out. and david axelrod sat down, put up his feet on his desk and talked a little bit about the campaign. and i asked him about the biggest mistakes the romney campaign made. and he told us that he had expected that back january, february, march before the obama campaign really had its footing, that the republican outside groups, the super pacs, would really hammer president obama on deficit deficits, kind of put him in a hole on that, and set the narrative of what axelrod said he was afraid of, a gold watch strategy, setting the idea that president obama was an historic figure. he was a good guy, but he just didn't get it done. on the other hand, axelrod thought that romney would define himself earlier, pick up on the businessman thing. and the democratic focus groups, again and again, they heard people saying that they thought the businessman thing gave romney a special credential, that it would make it easier for
him to solve the country's problems. but the romney campaign never got to that. the other issue that ax thought really could have worked for romney is bipartisanship, to talk about how, as a republican governor and democratic state, he made it work. the romney campaign got to that late, probably too late. >> first debate. >> yeah, and mike, you also asked him what the biggest gift to the campaign was. was it the tape? was it the 47% tape? >> there was that, and he said they also made a terrible mistake at the end with that jeep commercial that we saw here on "morning joe" that had two automobile ceos coming out and calling romney who was supposed to be the business guy, the michigan native, calling him a liar basically. >> mike allen. >> that's not good. >> with a look at the "politico playbook." mike, thanks so much. >> at his age. >> for 102, he's good-looking. >> i tell you what. >> if i'm looking that good five
or six years from now when i'm 102, i'll be happy. >> you know what it is? it's all that gingham pinafore. what is that? i don't know that what was. i don't know what i read there. >> keeps you young. when we come back, not a good day yesterday for mark sanchez. what do we do here? >> when has mark sanchez had a good day recently? >> that's a good question. >> last night he went out to eva longoria. >> when will it be tebow time? mike florio joins us next on "morning joe." ♪ if it wasn't for you
♪ don't know what i'd do ♪ i'd have nothing to prove ♪ i'd have nothing to lose ♪ i'd be all lost at sea ♪ with no reason to make it through ♪ [ male announcer ] introducing the celebration diamond collection. ♪ if it wasn't for you [ male announcer ] diamonds so expertly cut, we guarantee them for life. zales is the diamond store. let love shine.
time for the "morning joe gridiron grind." mike florio is back with us, he is, of course, the founder of profootballtalk.com. let's start with the falcons no longer undefeated. what happened in new orleans? >> the saints have done very well against the falcons since drew brees got there in 2006. the falcons have only won twice. so it felt like this was going to come. and the saints have been hot. they started 0-4, they're running the ball more now that joe witt joe vitt is back. you get the running game going, you have the passing game. the defense has improved. it couldn't have gotten much worse. and it was time for the falcons to lose. they've had close games. joe knows it in his heart, his falcons weren't going to go 16-0. it was a matter of time and yesterday was the time. >> there's something about the saints, too, i know they're 4-5, but they still have drew brees.
they had that turmoil with the bounty scandal. don't you think they'll be there at the end? >> everything feels like it's settled down, but here's the thing. you've got the tampa bay bucs who are 5-4, the seahawks, a lot of teams scrambling for wild card berths. it's going to set up for an exciting stretch run. >> messy day in new york. let's start with the giants. we were just talking, eli manning looked like rookie year eli manning. >> he looked like usual november eli manning. they start strong and then they hit a hole and they put themselves -- some of those throws yesterday. >> why do they do this? come on. >> come on, man. >> that's a little bit of the bad brett favre in him. his arm's tired, he said no, his arm's not tired. the offensive line isn't helping him out. they've got to figure it out. not a good way to come out of the bye week. if they lose to the packers, they'll be tied with the cowboys we had all written down. >> cowboys got it done in philly. the giants have to be careful. they've got a lot of nfc coming
up to them as they go down. >> typical giants, they find a way. whether or not they're going to find a way all the way like they did last year, who knows? but the eagles have found a way. embarrassment and humiliation. >> what's up with vick? how is he? >> well, he's got a concussion. there's reports that he won't be able to play next week when they face the redskins. nick foles was okay. behind that offensive line, it's hard for anybody to do well. vick is now banged up. you've got several concussions yesterday from quarterbacks, jay cutler, alex smith, a lot of quarterbacks banged up yesterday. >> at least, though, we jets fans have sanchez. >> yeah. no condition cushion foncussion sanchez yet. >> no offensive touchdown yesterday. the only way they scored was on defense in seattle. what do you do if you're rex ryan? >> the window for using tim tebow is closing rapidly because if tim tebow would come in at some point and do what he did in denver last year when he took that team from 1-5 to the playoffs, the question is why don't you do it sooner?
if you bring tebow in, there won't be time to turn it around. they should have done it for yesterday's game. and now they'll continue to dig in and say we're sticking with sanchez. >> of course, the worst thing is for rex ryan is that he lets him in after being this stubborn, and he's proven wrong. >> so to save face, they won't put tebow in despite the fact he might give them a better chance to win? >> you get to a point where if you go with tebow and you miss the playoffs by a game or two, but tebow's done very well, then all the criticism's going to be, why did you wait so long to do it? >> just explain to me why tim tebow is on this team if he's not going to actually get to play. >> he was perfect yesterday. he was 3 for 3 for 8 yards. >> i just don't understand what the deal is. >> they wanted him, but they have no idea how to use him. he's not a guy you can put in. you've got to go with him. >> that's what it's looking more and more like. why did you want to bring him in? >> rex didn't want to face him. if you have him, you never have to worry about facing him
because look what he did to rex last year. they just don't know how to use him. the guy just doesn't work. >> hey, you know what? put him behind the center. tell him to go, "hut, hut!" that's how you use him. this is absolutely insane. he's got one of the worst quarterbacks in football this year, and he's got tebow, a guy that turned the broncos around last year, single-handedly, along with the great field goal kicker, takes them to the playoffs, and you're sitting him on the bench? this is just stupid. if you've got him, use him. if you don't want to, trade him. >> and it might not work, but again, why he's here, right? if sanchez faltered, you bring in tebow. >> fourth quarter of a close game, that's where he does his magic, but he's never going to get that opportunity. >> it's totally pride. rex ryan, it wasn't his guy, and now he won't play him. >> rex is going to get fired if he keeps losing. >> we've got to bring this up, joe, with apologies. bcs. >> here we go, going into the weekend, my teams, alabama and atlanta falcons, 17-0.
18-0. pretty good. pretty good in my living room. >> but that falcons' loss easier to overcome than alabama. it just felt like eventually alabama was going to pull this one out. i watched most of the game. it's just a matter of time before alabama blows them off the field. and this play was so predictable. and there it wasn't. >> that kid, johnny manziel, is unreal. >> johnny football's incredible. you know, alabama had so many opportunities. but, you know, after the game, how do you knock a.j.? a.j. has done so much for them through the years. these are just kids, and the fact that they've won as much as they've won. but i'll tell you, some pretty bad coaching on alabama's part. they were completely outcoached the first quarter. they had no idea what was coming. time and time again, the defensive guys were confused running on and off the field. and like you said, at the end of the game, everybody on the field knew what the play was going to be. >> yep. >> so what are you going to do? it happens.
>> you don't give up on nick saban. >> oh, no. >> he's got something up his sleeve and could get back into this thing. >> i still say and i'm not just saying this because joe is sitting here, i would say it for any s.e.c. team. if you go in and win the championship game, if you beat georgia, if you are the victor of the s.e.c., you should be in the national title game. we'll see if somebody else loses. >> i'm not giving up on nick saban. >> for this year. >> the alabama coaches were outcoached from the beginning to the end. >> i'm not criticizing nick saban. >> players have bad games. coaches -- nick saban can't win every single game. >> right. >> why not? >> this is really more of a tribute to the a&m coaches. they came in with a game plan. they executed it. and this quarterback, johnny football, baby, here's hoping he gets drafted by the jets next year. i don't want to face him again. >> get him out of the league. mike florio, thanks so much. we'll see you. up next, "mika's must-read opinion pages." keep it on "morning joe."
is what drives us to broadcast the world's biggest events in 3d, or live to your seat high above the atlantic ocean. it's what drives us to create eco-friendly race tracks, batteries that power tomorrow's cars, nearly indestructible laptops, and the sustainable smart towns of the future. at panasonic, we're driven to make what matters most better. just another way we're engineering a better world for you.
try running four.ning a restaurant is hard, fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. at legalzoom, we've created a better place to handle your legal needs. maybe you have questions about incorporating a business you'd like to start. or questions about protecting your family with a will or living trust. and you'd like to find the right attorney to help guide you along, answer any questions and offer advice. with an "a" rating from the better business bureau legalzoom helps you get personalized and affordable legal protection. in most states, a legal plan attorney is available with every personalized document to answer any questions. get started at legalzoom.com today. and now you're protected.
a live look from the top of the rock. look how gorgeous. it's morning in new york city. welcome back, everyone. >> that's amazing. >> time now for the "must-read opinion pages." >> t.j. must be on vacation. >> he's on a cruise. >> no, i'm here. >> yeah, he's here. i know he's here. he's e-mailing me. >> so your must-reads are fascinating because you've got "the new york times" editorial saying too much money. "wall street journal" saying not enough money. >> exactly. we'll take frank bruni's to the airwaves here from "the new york times." the oracle's debacle, and he's talking about karl rove. rove's groups lavished some $300 million on republican races, including the presidential campaign, into which they plunked an estimated $127
million on ads in support of romney. they plunked more than $11 million into the senate race in virginia, which republicans lost, and anywhere from $1 million to $7 million into another nine senate campaigns, according to the center for responsive politics. in only one of those races, in nevada, did the republican candidate prevail. rove's awful election night proved that you can't buy momentum or create it simply by decreeing it and that there's a boundary to what bluster accomplishes. the road he zoomed down in 2012 was toward a potentially diminished place in his party. john heilemann, go ahead. do you agree? >> well, there's -- >> what? say it! >> there's just a lot to say -- >> why do you have a problem with this? >> no, there's a lot to say about karl. i think in the senate races, look. karl did not choose the candidates in the senate races across the country. the outside groups that went
into these congressional races, you're kind of stuck with who you've got. you didn't pick todd akin, richard mourdock, he didn't run the campaign of george allen in virginia. he's an independent expenditure. on some level those campaigns, you know, he could go in and try to provide air support, but you're not the strategist for those campaigns. you don't pick the candidate. the presidential race, there's no question this proves the limits of money. that's actually kind of the point to that. if you have a bad candidate, badly run campaigns, you can spend all the money in the world and you're not going to save them. the second point is the presidential race where i think if i were a donor to crossroads, i'd have more significant questions because choices were made late in that campaign to spend a lot of money in places like minnesota and michigan and pennsylvania where mitt romney never had a chance. and if i were a billionaire, which i'm not, and if i had written a bunch of checks to crossroads which i have not, i would be more upset late in the game when good money was thrown down toilets. that's where i think there's
more of an issue if i were a donor for that group. >> i'll tell you, if i were a donor, my biggest problem, richard, would be that i was lied to. i was lied to by the -- as david frum said, the conservative entertainment establishment. i mean, the conservative media establishment. they lied to the donors. they lied to the base. they lied to everybody about how romney was ahead and things were looking good in the senate. the pollsters -- everybody lied. and so guys keep writing checks and nifind out the reason they went to minnesota and pennsylvania is all these people were saying romney was going to win ohio, they knew he was not going to win ohio. they knew all along. >> you know what i like? i like that the focus is not so much where it is -- and i'm curious to get your view on this -- that it should be on the issues. that you're beginning to have a debate in republican circles not only about where money was spent and when but on issues, for example, on immigration, whether
the republicans got it wrong, or this or that spending issue. that's actually healthy. the sooner we get over the tactics of the campaign and we get into whether republicans made a mistake by their embrace of certain issues or certain positions, i actually think that would be a healthy debate for the party and for the country. >> you know, karl rove could have raised another $100 million, mika, the final week of the campaign. and it wouldn't have undone the damage that a false and misleading 30-second jeep ad did in ohio, in wisconsin, in michigan across the midwest. you find time and time again, you can't buy credibility. >> you can't buy it. >> and to richard's point, no amount of money was going to fix mitt romney's problem with hispanic voters given where he was on immigration. no amount of money was going to fix mitt romney's problems with a lot of women voters given where he was on planned parenthood. >> that ought to be the lesson. >> those were tactical decisions that were made on issues that put him in a place that made it very hard for him to win the number of votes he was going to need. >> and that's what people who
and a trip to the one place with the new ideas that help us pull it all together. from the things that hang and shine... ...to the things that sparkle and jingle. all while saving the things that go in our wallet. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get an assortment of martha stewart living ornamen,s free when you purchase select artificial trees. some people put everything intotheir name on the door, and their heart into their community. small business saturday is a day to show our support. a day to shop at stores owned by our friends and neighbors. and do our part for the businesses that do so much for us. on november 24th, let's get out and shop small. humans -- even when we cross our t's and dot our i's,
up next, former presidential candidate who some believe could be the next secretary of state, jon huntsman joins us next. >> jon meacham. this is such a confusing shot. >> pulitzer prize-winning author jon meacham joins the table. we'll be right back. my friend told me about a great new way to get deals. it's called bankamerideals, from bank of america. i choose the cash back deals in my mobile or online banking. i just use my bank of america debit or credit card when i pay. put in my account. this is cash back on top of other rewards we already get. and best of all, it's free. friends help friends get deals. pass it on. [ male announcer ] introducing bankamerideals, free for online banking customers. sign in to your online banking to choose your deals today. who doesn't like a good deal?
gives you a low national plan premium... so you can focus on what really matters. call humana at 1-800-808-4003. i just finished a bowl of your new light chicken pot pie soup and it's so rich and creamy... is it really 100 calories? let me put you on webcan... ...lean roasted chicken... and a creamy broth mmm i can still see you. [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.
military families face, we understand. at usaa, we know military life is different. we've been there. that's why every bit of financial advice we offer is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. [ laughs ] dad! dad! [ applause ] ♪ [ male announcer ] life brings obstacles. usaa brings advice. call or visit us online. we're ready to help. sven's home security gets the most rewards
of any small business credit card! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. ♪ go on take the money and run i think honest debate, fresh
thinking, leadership in the republican party and the leadership in the conservative movement has to pull back, let people float new ideas. let's have a serious debate. don't scream and yell where one person says, you know what? it won't kill the country if we raise taxes a little bit on millionaires. it really won't, i don't think. i don't understand why republicans don't take obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000, making $1 million, really? republican party's going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted democratic and half of whom live in hollywood. >> it is the top of the hour. welcome back to "morning joe." >> that's a rough division. >> yeah, something like that. >> john heilemann and richard haass are still with us. and joining the table, pulitzer prize-winning historian, jon meacham. he's the author of a book that is now out. >> yes! >> we have been calling it forthcoming for six months. >> yeah. >> six months? six years. >> in a shameless display of self-promotion. >> not if you do it. >> the book is called "thomas
jefferson: the art of power," which we'll talk about a little later in the show. it's really good. >> yeah. i started reading it this weekend. very exciting. >> thank you. >> no, it is exciting. i think people are going to see a side to jefferson they haven't seen. >> he was a politician. first and foremost. >> he was. >> and it's fun being in your review. >> yes. >> my father was amused by that. >> mika got as much ink as i did. >> the review was 12 pages long. >> longer than the book. >> good god. joining us from washington, former republican presidential candidate and former governor of utah, jon huntsman. good to have you back in the conversation this morning, sir. >> mika, a pleasure to be here. thanks for having me. >> very nice. start with the news? >> sure. >> we're going to begin this hour with david petraeus, general david petraeus in his sudden and unexpected resignation as director of the central intelligence agency on friday, citing an extramarital affair. this morning's "new york times" say high-up fbi officials were
notified this summer that agents had uncovered a possible affair involving the new cia director. but according to "the times," no one outside the fbi was notified until last week because the investigation was not ready, and there were concerns over security breaches. some lawmakers are now calling for an inquiry into the fbi's handling of the case. chair of the senate intelligence committee, senator dianne feinstein, says she found out about the unfolding scandal through the media. >> we received no advance notice. it was like a lightning bolt. the way i found out, i came back to washington thursday night. friday morning, the staff director told me there were a number of calls from press about this. i called david petraeus. >> and are you going to investigate why the fbi didn't notify you before? >> yes, absolutely. i mean, this is something that could have had an effect on national security. i think we should have been
told. there is a way to do it. >> on saturday, house majority leader eric cantor revealed that he had been tipped off about the situation in late october, saying in a statement, quote, "i was contacted by an fbi employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain director mueller was aware of these serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security." petraeus was scheduled to testify this thursday at a closed congressional inquiry about the deadly assault in benghazi and share the findings of his independent investigation. petraeus will now be replaced at the inquiry by acting cia director mike morrell, but others including senator lindsey graham say it's likely petraeus will be called on at some point. >> i hate what happened to general petraeus for his family and the families for those involved, but we have four dead americans in benghazi. we have a national security failure along in the making. i don't see how in the world you
can find out what happened in benghazi before, during and after the attack if general petraeus doesn't testify. so from my point of view, it's absolutely essential that he give testimony before the congress so we can figure out benghazi. >> nbc news has reached out to general petraeus and paula broadwell. so far there's been no response. jill kelley and her husband, scott, released a statement to "the new york times" yesterday asking for privacy for their family. >> richard haass, there's so many questions. you brought it up last hour. there are so many questions that are raised by this, more questions than answers. and a lot of those questions go directly at the fbi. how did this investigation start? who was this agent that began the investigation just because a friend was receiving some harassing e-mails, and how did they allow it go on? there are a lot of civil liberties questions that are going to be leveled at the fbi for how they handled this case, after they found out national security was not involved. >> it will be what did the fbi know, but also, how did it find
these things out? what does it take to trigger an fbi investigation of some sort of cyber offense or alleged cyber offense? nothing's clear. apparently a favor was done for a friend here. this raises fundamental questions for americans worried about privacy. if this person can go to a friend at the fbi and have an investigation launched. >> did they get the cyber unit engaged on an investigation where, jon meacham, they claim they're going to launch an investigation with their cyber investigation unit because of, quote, harassing e-mails. >> right. >> and then they find out who was sending the e-mails. then they go into her inbox. then they go and they find out that this woman's involved with the head of the agency that's, like, their greatest rival. so then they start a new fishing expedition, and they dig, dig, dig. then they find out there's an affair, but they justify that by saying well, there may be some secret documents. but then they find out that that's not the case at all. >> right.
>> you know, we probably should go ahead and just tell the head of the intelligence community about this. the fbi blew through so many fences here. it's stunning. >> it is. having the fbi investigating the cia is reminiscent of the darker moments of watergate when there were political -- i'm not saying political motivations here, but whenever you get these agencies banging into each other, you end up with a mess. >> and there are no two agencies that are more competitive with each other in washington, and i'll use the word, who hate each other more, than the cia and the fbi. that's what is so concerning about this, that two women that are exchanging e-mails, or an e-mail being sent to a woman who has a buddy who's in the fbi? could you start an investigation? >> we don't know. >> just to go back to caution about all this, none of us at the table know what was in those e-mails at this point.
you know, it could be perfectly valid. >> okay. >> it may not be. i agree with you that the whole story raises a lot of troubling questions. >> okay, john. what could be in an e-mail that would justify them -- okay, so let's say there's a death threat in an e-mail. what do you do? if you're the fbi, if you have a buddy in the fbi, you look at it, and then you find out oh, it's this lady in virginia -- or in charlotte, north carolina. let's send somebody to her door and tell her to knock it off. and if she's a threat, then we'll take care of it. instead, they blow through that wall. and they go okay, let's check out her personal life. oh, she's involved with david petraeus? and so then they blow through that wall. and they go oh, now this is not about a harassing e-mail. this is about national security. and then they find out it's not about national security. and then they blow through that wall, and then they take it outside the agency. >> i totally understand your concerns about it, but it just seems to me that without knowledge of exactly what the evidence was at every step, it's hard to condemn the fbi for doing it. it may be totally illegitimate.
it may also be that at any given point along the way, you've read things about concerns whether she had access to classified documents. >> and the fbi said she doesn't. >> you're talking about at each successive step along the way, you could imagine evidence that it would justify going to the next step. you could also imagine evidence that didn't justify it, it all being a vendetta. i just feel like there's so much data and evidence that we just don't have about exactly what happened here to know. yes. >> and we also all know culturally that investigations take on their own momentum. >> yeah. >> and people want to justify the work they've been doing. >> and to your point earlier, the rivalry between the fbi and cia is legendary, that's totally true, but somebody's got to investigate the cia. you can't just have the cia without any accountability. you can't have it investigating itself. similarly in the other direction. so the question is, there's problems in both directions. >> but they didn't investigate the cia. >> i understand that, but jon was --
>> they investigated a guy's personal life. >> i understand that. i'm just trying to go back to the point that it's true that there's those interagency rivalries, but there's also got to be some cross-agency accountability. >> i want to know, who's supposed to adjudicate this? did the attorney general know? >> yes. >> at some point, is there a judge involved? >> i agree. >> the fbi has a lot of questions they need to answer. jon huntsman, this is sort of a political potpourri. you can either talk about this issue. you can talk about benghazi or you can talk about why republicans lost as badly as they did tuesday, or you can talk about the fiscal live. ready, go. >> let's just go back to the topic on the table. let's just recognize for what it is. it's a tragedy all the way around. you've got a great leader in david petraeus who now has fallen, you know, who wit was
said sad as a nation, we could use more heroes. you also have the cia which is full of a lot of wonderfully talented people. what this does in terms of operating morale, in terms of keeping people focused during a time when we need their work, we need their eye on the ball in the war on terror is probably measurable, and that's sad. and third of all, you know, there is a chain of custody issue here. i mean, there are some reporting requirements. you've got the fbi involved, presumably they took the information to the justice department, which they are part of. presumably the justice department would have taken it to the white house. and above all, what about the oversight committees on congress -- in congress? we already heard from senator feinstein. why on earth were they not given a heads up very early on in this investigation? there's just a lot out there. a lot of smoke. and it really is kind of the fog of war right now. we're not going to know a lot of the facts until they come in and begin putting the pieces together. >> jon meacham. >> i think the governor makes a really important point about cia morale. an agency that for almost 35
years now has just been hit again and again and again. it was george h.w. bush brought in after the church committee to try to stabilize that era, and that was 1975/'76. after the last ten years where they've been trying so hard to protect us and work out whatever institutional problems, this is just one more thing they didn't need. >> and to take a guy like general petraeus off the battlefield, and it is a battlefield. he was leading a very, very successful battle along with the administration and our troops on the ground against terrorism. and to take him off of here because of, again, a situation -- >> he just interviewed someone about generals. >> -- that started with a buddy, that somebody knew a buddy in the fbi, and to take one of our greatest military assets off the battlefield. >> but here's my basic question, though, that we didn't ask before. we talked about this earlier and we never really got to it. just a basic question, do you think petraeus needed to resign given the facts that were known,
given the military code of conduct, everything that you can -- all available evidence, did he -- do you think he needed to resign or not? >> i don't work in the cia. so i don't know what it would have done to morale if he had stayed in the cia. i think he could have stayed there. i don't think the cia would have been adversely affected. i think a few people in the cia including leaders of the cia have had affairs in the past. i don't think that that was a shock in and of itself. what bothers me is that this did not remain an internal fbi situation after they found out that national security was not at risk. i do not understand and i need the fbi to justify why they felt they needed to take this external after they made the determination that national security was not jeopardized. let's talk, jon huntsman, since we have you here, about the republicans. what happened last tuesday? >> well, i wish i had a very succinct answer for you, but i can conclude this. and that is if during the bush
administration we had been successful with immigration reform, mitt romney would be president today. the way i look at it, you know, this should be an exciting time for the party. everybody's down and out. everybody's pointing fingers. let the consultants fight with one another. but i do know this. you know, businesses perform best when they're staring into the abyss, when the numbers are really bad. it tends to motivate you and stimulate you. you take a fresh look at the world. and i think for the republican party, this is a very, very important moment. we ought to be looking at fresh ideas. we ought to be looking at why we're losing demographics as we are, why it was a 60/40 split with young people for heaven's sake. and i think we're going to conclude that, you know, the republican, from the days of lincoln and through teddy roosevelt and certainly eisenhower and through reagan during the ending of the cold war, we're known by a few things that really do need to stand out. we've always owned the economy. and we lost the economy. and that's a heartbreak because you know what else? the president not only won
re-election, but he now owns the economy for the next four years. and chances are, the economy's going to improve over the next four years. unemployment's going to go down. gdp growth is going to go up. and four years from now, the party could be in a really difficult situation with an improving economy. that's number one. two, we've always owned strong national security, a confident foreign policy and world view. and we missed an opportunity to address the middle east. and that is how you clean it up. not how you make it worse, how you exert a little bit more in the way of diplomacy as opposed to militancy. i think we missed that one completely. and finally, you know, i think there have always been some libertarian strands in this party of ours. and we're missing that one, too. you know, when i go to college campuses as i do on a regular basis, these young kids coming up -- and we lost a whole lot of them -- they're not affiliating with parties, joe and mika. they're unaffiliated. and they have a strong libertarian bent. they care about marriage equality.
they care about the environment. and they're furious about the debt. and i'm not sure that we read young people like we should have. and i think we need to begin tuning in. and now's, i think, a huge opening and i think a very important opportunity to the party. >> okay. so governor, given everything you've just said, how can republicans begin to address at least some of it while leading up to the fiscal cliff and these negotiations? is it possible? >> well, of course, part of our discussion is going to be around what the negotiation -- what the package looks like in the leadup to the fiscal cliff. and i think, you know, there's going to have to be some understanding of tax reform between now and january 20th, about spending restraints. there are all kinds of proposals on the table. simpson-bowles among them. you know, this is a time for us to talk about the phasing out of loopholes, eliminating deductions and lowering the effective rate. this is something that is a republican principle, clearing out the tax code.
and i think this is a hugely important opportunity for us to take the upper hand in putting that on the table. there will have to be a compromise at some point. but so long as compromise is seen as treasonous in the republican party, we're going to have a really tough time getting to the end point. >> governor huntsman, you laid out an agenda that was one part solvency, one part a more strategic foreign policy and one part more libertarian in terms of personal issues. do you think there's actually space right now in the modern republican party for that sort of a comprehensive agenda? >> well, you know, i'm also a federalist. and i think the republican party ought to own the tenth amendment. and we ought to be letting states do what they do best on a whole host of issues. and we ought to be taking their lead. when it comes to education reform, take a look at what governor bush did. when it comes to fixing health care reform, there are all kinds of interesting models that are emerging throughout the states.
with respect to energy independence and greater use of natural gas which is going to constitute a whole new opening economically for us. there are states that are way ahead of others in that regard. so paying close attention to the best practices that are emerging in the 50 states, i think, is a critically important thing for republicans to do as well. >> let's go there. we had david frum on the other day. i don't agree with david on all the issues, but he talked about how conservatives and republicans were lied to. they were lied to by -- i think -- what did he call them? the conservative entertainment complex. and they were. i mean, what would happen is, a pollster who basically was engaging in witchcraft and not polling would come out with a poll that would show -- you pick the state that you wanted mitt romney to be ahead in, he would give it to you. the top conservative website would then put it on the top of the page. and then cable news channels and
talk radio hosts would come on. and all day we would hear that anybody that dared to tell the truth about the terrible situation our party was in would get hammered. i got hammered nonstop. i remember tweeting sunday night in early september, and "the huffington post" picked it up the next morning. seriously, you would have thought that i called for communism to be proclaimed, you know, the form of government in this country. time and time -- >> you're just a rhino, joe. what can we do about that? >> and that's the thing. us rhinos who, by the way, have been warning this day was coming for a very long time. more conservative than they are. but, again, what do we do to get our leaders to stand up to this conservative entertainment complex, people make millions selling books, make millions on the radio, make millions on tv, but they're leading republicans astray and making them think they're going to win elections when they need to be sounding
the alarm. >> we have to incentivize solutions. we have to become a solutions-based party. and that means practical approaches to the problems that this country faces. we've given way to rhetoric and finger-pointing and the blame game and name calling. you know, if we had used all that energy that was spent on the president's birth certificate, on tax reform or on afghanistan, we'd be in a much different place today. but i think you bring up a very valid point, and that is we do have, you know, some pontificators in our party. we have the media elite, in a sense, on the right. they're making millions and millions of dollars talking about all of the incendiary aspects of public policy. where we need solutions as opposed to people in search of a larger audience. and i don't know how you go about incentivizing solutions, but that's exactly where our party needs to go because if ever there was a time when solutions were needed, it would be right now.
but there's a more fundamental question, mika, and that is who is the leader of the party right now? we don't have any party leadership. gone are the days when we actually had great, strong visionary party chairs who actually would lead out and bring everybody together. we just don't have that anymore. and i think that's a huge problem for us today. >> we'll see who emerges. it's the opposite problem of liberal bias, for certain. >> well, it is, again, a conservative -- not even conservative. again, this has nothing to do with ideology, john heilemann, and that's one of the things that angers me so much is that it has nothing to do with conservative ee deoloideology. it has to do with whipping people into a frenzy. talk about the polling. for two months, for three months, a lot of people in the conservative entertainment complex, industry, convinced conservatives, don't worry about it. you're going to win. they're cooking the books. they're rigging the polls.
i always -- i always give the example of the doctor that opens up a patient who has cancer. and i say here on the show all the time, yes, i tell the truth about my party. it's like a doctor that opens up a patient that sees cancer. you close a patient up. you can tell them they have cancer. you need to take care of it, or you can do what people that make millions and millions cooking up these theories do and close up the patient. you're fine. you don't have cancer. go on. have fun. >> there's a great irony in the fact that for months we heard from the conservative freak show and from some people in the romney campaign who were not part of that freak show but were still making this argument which was that all the polls were skewed, every one of them were skewed. what turned out in the end was that the only way you could get to a belief in the inevitability of mitt romney's victory was to skew your own polls. so the conservative polls that showed romney winning were imposing a view of the electorate onto those polls that
turned out to be false in the event. and in fact in the romney campaign's own polling, they basically had to go in and say no, no, we don't believe the party i.d. and the ethnic composition of the electorate that we're seeing in the actual polling. so we're going to put fake -- we're going to impose our own new framework on this so that we can come up with the answer that we want. and it turned out on election day that that was as foolish and as ridiculous as anyone did in this election. >> they were dead wrong. >> the other thing that could be happening here is a self-reinforcing style of the paranoid style. you need a reality-based view now more, and now people are going to think that everything's a lie. >> governor jon huntsman, thank you so much. it's great to see you. >> thanks, mika and joe. er eric erickson was right, by the way. he called this one. >> he called this one a long time. thank you so much. >> pleasure. coming up, congressman peter king joins us. we'll get his take on general
it turns out that petraeus, a week and a half ago, went to tripoli, libya, and conducted his own personal inquiry into benghazi, interviewed the station chief, actually got the base chief from benghazi down, interviewed him, interviewed the head, i think, twice of the quick reaction force that was involved in this episode. so he knows the full story. and the question will be, i suspect, will he be asked to testify as a private citizen? >> 27 past the hour. joining us now, republican representative from new york and chairman of the homeland security committee, congressman peter king. peter, good to have you back on the show. >> mika, good to be with you. >> let's start with your district, first of all. how are you all in the wake of sandy?
>> oh, it's been devastating. there will be tens of thousands of people homeless. there's still, i think, 60,000, 70,000 people without power. homes have been wrecked. i don't know if the country fully appreciates the devastating impact this has had. i've gone home after home which is just destroyed. people, their whole life's possessions are on their front lawn. i was with a woman just last week, she's recovering from chemotherapy. she lost two sons on 9/11. everything is gone. all the family memorabilia is gone, the house is ruined. this is common throughout the district. it's going to be a long, hard haul, especially with the cold weather coming up. >> and you want the president to send in federal reinforcements for sandy victims, right? >> yeah. what i'm asking for, the long island power authority has totally failed. i'm not being at all critical of the administration, lipa. i'm asking for them to send in the army corps of engineers to not only do work but put in a plan that lipa would have to comply with because they've been
totally inadequate up till now. >> they have, and i've been following that story, congressman, and i'm just wondering at this point, what are they saying? are you talking to lipa? are you being able to get through? because at some point they were hard to reach for people. people were, like, storming lipa headquarters trying to get answers because they are sitting there still without power to this day. >> it's extremely difficult. you get misinformation, you get double talk. believe me, congressional offices, the county executive offices, all get the same stiff arm from lipa as the ordinary citizen does. not that we expect any special treatment, but people call us asking for information, and we can't get the right information. >> nothing, yeah. >> from lipa. is really is a difficult, frustrating time for everyone, mostly for the people right now who are without homes and without power. >> think about people without power even still in their homes. think of the elderly that are having to face exposure, freezing. freezing temperatures. another nor'easter, snow. >> how about getting kids to school. >> it's devastating and here we
are so long after the hurricane, still no power. congressman -- >> keep us posted on that. we would be happy to keep spreading the word for you. >> yeah, keep us posted. >> thank you. >> let us know how we can help out. as chairman of the homeland security committee, we've been bouncing this question around. we have no idea -- and i'm a friend of david petraeus. we have no idea how this investigation began, how it spiraled the way it spiraled and how somebody that had a buddy in the fbi could launch an investigation into personal conduct that could bring down the director of the cia. >> joe, i share all of your concerns here. and i'm on the intelligence committee. mike rogers is the chairman. but i strongly believe that david petraeus has to be a witness at that hearing. if not this week, then weeks after. but as far as the fbi investigation itself, i agree with you. i don't know how this rises to the level of an fbi investigation. secondly, joe, and this to me is the most important thing. once the fbi realized that it
was investigating the director of the cia or the cia director had come within its focus or its scope, i believe at that time they had an absolute obligation to tell the president. not to protect david petraeus, but to protect the president. david petraeus -- and i have a great regard for him -- i was supporting him for president in 2009, hoping he'd run in 2012. i know him. i have a great admiration for him. the fact is he is a key part of the president's foreign policy team. maybe more than any other cia director in recent time. he was going around the world negotiating various understandings and agreements. i'm aware of that. and to have someone out there in such a sensitive position who the fbi thought perhaps could have been compromised or was under the scope of an fbi investigation who may or may not have been having an affair at the time, that to me had to have been brought to the president or the national security council. if not, the fbi was derelict in its duty. also, i would think to get access to his e-mails, knee
needed a court order. i would like to know what went into the application to get that court order. when you get these court orders, you get a report back. to me, there's many, many questions here. and also, when did david petraeus find out he was under investigation? >> yeah. >> the stories change. we're getting all different leaks. they say that top officials in the fu knew it by the summer. if that's the case, they had an obligation to go to the white house immediately. >> so to hone in on just a few of peter's questions, richard, does it make sense to you that the president didn't know about this until after the election? >> well, if you're asking me whether it's possible, sure. >> does it make sense to you? >> no because the idea that one of your senior lieutenants and the one who's entrusted with more sensitive material than anybody else, one is being investigated, and two, the reason you would investigate him in part is to make sure that he could not be put in a compromising position. by and large, ten seconds of background. if you work security clearances, it's not so much what you do,
it's whether you're comfortable if what you're doing in private comes out public. if you're comfortable with it, it tends to be okay. if however, it's something that could be used for blackmail, it's not okay. the idea that one of the senior people, most access to classified material being investigated and no one could give the president a heads up -- >> eric holder, his own attorney general and somebody that he's close to would not give him the heads up that this is going on since the summer? >> there's so many questions here. the old issue, who guards the guardians? who investigates the investigators? this is going to have question after question after question about what was done, what was said, and then why certain things weren't done. this is one of those things that's going to take on a life of its own. >> peter, are you skeptical that attorney general holder kept this information from the white house despite the fact his agency knew it since this summer? >> joe, i'm not into conspiracy theories, but i certainly have questions. my concern concern is with the fbi. why they went ahead with the investigation and why they
didn't tell somebody. if they did tell somebody above, it would have been eric holder. and in that case, holder should have gone to the president. or director mueller deals with the president on a regular basis. he could have been alone with the president and said listen, i hate to bring this up. i love david petraeus, but here's the reality what's happening right now. the president was owed that information. either the director didn't give it to the attorney general or didn't give it to the president or he did give it to the attorney general and the attorney general did not provide that information to the president. >> wait, listen. i mean, peter, it is mind blowing to think that the director of the fbi knew about this from the summer, has almost daily contacts with the president of the united states, knows that the man who is entrusted to, in effect, run the war on terror may be compromised and he doesn't say anything to the president of the united states for months? somebody needs to be fired here. this is ridiculous.
>> this is a crisis, i believe, of major proportions. this is not the usual political thing. we're not talking about a secretary of commerce or some undersecretary somewhere. >> not -- not that we are denigrating the work of the secretary of commerce. by any stretch of the imagine ag imagination. they don't deal with national secretary. i'm talking such a top-level national security person. the president, when you strip everything else aside, the president's main obligation is to be commander in chief. to be commander in chief, he has to be able to trust his top foreign policy, his top intelligence people. they are part of the team that keeps america safe. >> all right. congressman peter king raising some questions this morning. thank you very much. >> mika, thank you. >> all the best to you. let us know if there's anything we can do. >> thank you, mika. appreciate your concern. >> which is still to ravaged from hurricane sandy. >> peter, let us know if we can get some information out for your constituents who are suffering right now.
just through a horrific situation. >> best of luck. >> thank you very much. >> once again, howard baker looms large here. what did the president know? what did the fbi know? what did the attorney general know? and when did they know it? >> again, and you certainly know this, richard haass, that the president has such a close relationship with the fbi director because of all the threats. and they talk constantly. and the fact that mueller could have known this possibly from the summer and know that the cia director could be compromised, if they really believe that. >> when i came on the show this morning, i had questions, as a result of an hour and a half, they have multiplied exponentially. >> we aim to please. >> the fbi -- the fbi, the attorney general, everybody better get their story straight fast because this doesn't add up. >> are you done? i'm sorry. coming up -- >> what would had i willry do? "the new york times'" gail
tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 then tonight, i'm trading 9500 miles away in japan. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with the new global account from schwab, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i hunt down opportunities around the world tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 as if i'm right there. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and i'm in total control because i can trade tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 directly online in 12 markets in their local currencies. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i use their global research to get an edge. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 their equity ratings show me how schwab tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 rates specific foreign stocks tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 based on things like fundamentals, momentum and risk. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and i also have access to independent tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 firms like ned davis research tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and economist intelligence unit. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 plus, i can talk to their global specialists 24/7. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and trade in my global account commission-free tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 through march 2013. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 best part... no jet lag. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-866-294-5409 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and a global specialist tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 will help you get started today.
time for citi price rewind. because your daughter really wants that pink castle thing. and you really don't want to pay more than you have to. only citi price rewind automatically searches for the lowest price. and if it finds one, you get refunded the difference. just use your citi card and register your purchase online. have a super sparkly day! ok. [ male announcer ] now all you need is a magic carriage. citi price rewind. buy now. save later.
welcome back to "morning joe" on this monday. a quick weather update to get you out the door. looking at st. louis where you'll be wearing the hat, gloves and winter coat after a warm weekend. the temperatures have plummeted across the middle of the country. let's take a look at these temperatures. that's really the story on this monday morning. the east coast is still warm for about 24 more hours. but all that cold air that's now spilling down through the midwest is headed for the eastern seaboard as we go throughout the day tomorrow. and the windchills is really what gets your attention. it's 18 in chicago. 9 in denver. so this is wintertime air that's invaded the middle of the country. out ahead of it we have a cold front that's got some rain with it. it's a wet morning from detroit to columbus to cincinnati, lexington, louisville, all the way down to bowling green. this rain will eventually push into pittsburgh and buffalo late today. your forecast on your monday, one more nice mild day from
boston to hartford, philadelphia, d.c., enjoy it. rain will move into atlanta late in the day. if you're in the northwest, you're also dealing with snow around spokane and cool rain around seattle and in portland. still ahead here on "morning joe," the legendary tom brokaw will join us. and next, secretary of state hillary clinton tells gail collins what she plans to do after she leaves the state department. does it involve iowa? that's next. we're back in a moment.
very sore looking kinda blistery. it was like a red rash... like somebody had set a bag of hot charcoal on my neck. i was a firefighter for 24 years. but, i have never encountered such a burning sensation until i had the shingles. i remember it well. i was in the back yard doing yard work. i had this irritation going on in my lower neck. i changed shirts because i thought there was something in the collar of the shirt irritating my neck. and i couldn't figure out what was going on. i had no idea it came from chickenpox. i always thought shingles was associated with people... a lot older than myself.
i can tell you from experience, it is bad. it's something you never want to encounter. for more of the inside story, visit shinglesinfo.com [ male announcer ] it's that time of year again. medicare open enrollment. time to compare plans and costs. you don't have to make changes. but it never hurts to see if you can find better coverage, save money, or both. and check out the preventive benefits you get after the health care law. ♪ open enrollment ends december 7th. so now's the time. visit medicare.gov or call 1-800-medicare. welcome back to "morning joe." at 45 past the hour. look at that beautiful shot of
washington, d.c. and joining us now, columnist for "the new york times," gail collins who wrote about hillary's next move in yesterday's paper. and gail, you wrote in part this. "what hand does clinton choose next? i am so looking forward to next year, she said. i just want to sleep and exercise and travel for fun and relax. it sounds so ordinary, but i haven't done it for 20 years. i would like to see whether i can get untired. i work out and stuff, but i don't do it enough, and i don't do it hard enough because i can't expend that much energy on it." >> by the way, that's my excuse. >> yeah. i think she has a better one. "it seems reasonable to assume that right now, clinton's lack of interest in a presidential race is genuine. despite her legendary ability to fall asleep at will, she really -- she is really, really tired. and at 65, she has no way of knowing how fully her body will rebound when she stops punishing it. if clinton follows through on her plan to not decide anything for a year, it would put the
2016 presidential speculation on ice, at least on the democratic side." a great read. >> which would be good, actually. >> that would be great. >> that would be like give her a special medal for stopping. >> she is, though, the most prepared. >> keep dreaming. >> what are you saying? >> as long as you have breath in your body? >> what are you talking about, heilmann? >> the pressure on her to decide is going to come very, very fast. because for precisely this reason. the entire field is frozen. and no one is going to be able to raise money. no one's going to be able to do anything until they know what she's doing. she's going to be under an extraordinary amount of pressure very quickly. >> they've got a poll out right now in iowa that shows her way, way ahead. >> no. >> does anybody want to know what the iowa democrats are thinking about the caucuses right now? no, no, no. stop! don't do it. >> it is so sick that erick erickson tweeted the morning after the election that he was
already getting calls from people vetting marco rubio. i said, guys, not today. it starts this early, gail. but let's talk about hillary, though, just a remarkable success. starting from 2000 forward. and who would have believed she would have risen even through a failed candidacy to this. >> i think her greatest genius is that she can fail and then figure it out and then fix it. when she ran for the senate the first time, her early candidacy was awful. >> oh, it was horrible. >> awful. >> they played captain jack instead of new york state of mind, and that was just the beginning. >> okay. >> no, they did. it was horrible. >> very bad. and then she figured out how to do it right. she did the listening tour. she got it into a place that she was comfortable with. i thought the listening tours were a propaganda ploy, but when you went out with her, she really liked those -- liked sitting and listening to the people in utica telling her what their problems were, and she was
great. and the same thing happened with her presidential campaign. it was terrible, and then she did figure it out, and she was really good at the end. but it was too late. >> she was incredible. she responds to adversity, too, and losing differently than her husband. they both have an extraordinary will, but she seems to just put her head down and charge forward. just outwork everybody. >> it's interesting how women embrace failure and actually can work through it and be very kind of self-aware about it. here's how you characterize what you all were just talking about. i always wondered how she regards the arc of her own life. controversial first lady to betrayed first lady to beloved first lady. clumsy carpetbagging senate candidate to treasure to international icon which she is. the theme it seemed to me was that you play the cards you're dealt. clinton stared for a few seconds, "i choose my cards," she said. "i choose them. i play them to the best of my
ability, move on to the next hand." >> she feels she's under control. >> that's amazing. >> that really is. >> go ahead, meacham. really. >> no, no. >> no, please. >> no, please. >> no, really. >> after you. after you. how conscious is she of the historic role she would play in terms of breaking the glass ceiling? >> it is true that every single day of her life people come up to her and say we have to have a first lady -- we have to have a president who is a woman. we have to have a woman president. we have to break that barrier. you are the only one who can do it. please, please, please run pour for president. that is a second career of her life just being asked to run for president to break that barrier so she couldn't be more aware of it. >> i think ultimately how do you -- how do you not do that? if you are the one and everybody wants to finally see that happen? i mean she is asked this
question every single day. >> and sometimes she says, no, no, no, i'm not going to do that. and sometimes she says, oh, i'm going to think for a while. she never says the things you would need to say to really stop it. she could go on tv any day and have a nice interview and say, look, i am never going to do this. i want you to go find somebody else. it's not going to be me. never, ever will i do that, i swear to you, and move on. she doesn't do that. >> you also write about how prepared she is and given -- >> terrifyingly. >> from every vantage point you could have in washington and around the world she has had it. >> we used to talk about various candidates, would they be able to name the head of pakistan if they were koercornered or somet. she knows the third assist aant social worker person in the cabinet in peru. she has massive, massive -- i don't know what that means. i don't know what that will mean
for voters, but her knowledge of world affairs now is just extraordinary. she has been in the senate. she has great relationships with the other senators, and she's been in the white house. she knows how that stuff works. >> she has dealt with the media, that's for sure. >> i'm always curious, one of the things most interesting, she does have an acute sense, also, of how much the status she is at right now in terms of popularity. she and her had husband are really the two most popular political figures in the country. >> who would have thought that in 1992? >> or in 2008. >> right. >> but she seems aware of the fact that part of that, where she is right now, is because she gets to not be political as secretary of state and i think she knows and i'm curious whether she reflected on this at all with you, if she did get back into the political fray, i think she would be that nominee but she will -- as soon as she becomes a political figure again, she no longer has the halo of being able to act the way she does now in a
nonpartisan way. >> when she talks about how she's not going to do it, when she says that, i'm not going to do politics anymore. i'm not going to do politics anymore, but she never says that in the kind of way you would need it to say it in order to have us stop having conversations like this. >> all right. gail collins, thank you. your piece is now online at newyorktimes.com. >> thank you, gail. coming up, jon meacham takes us inside his new biography on thomas jefferson and why he says the complicated man could be the most successful leader in american history.
with the fidelity stock screener, you can try strategies from independent experts and see what criteria they use. such as a 5% yield on dividend-paying stocks. then you can customize the strategies and narrow down to exactly those stocks you want to follow. i'm mark allen of fidelity investments. the expert strategies feature is one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account.
their name on the door, and their heart into their community. small business saturday is a day to show our support. a day to shop at stores owned by our friends and neighbors. and do our part for the businesses that do so much for us. on november 24th, let's get out and shop small. [ husband ] transfer! [ male announcer ] free data transfer at home. you just deleted all the photos! you did! no you did! [ male announcer ] or free data transfer when you buy a windows 8 computer at staples. another way staples makes it easier to upgrade.
gives you a low national plan premium... so you can focus on what really matters. call humana at 1-800-808-4003. so you can focus on what really matters. music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care may cost. so i never missed a beat. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.
good morning. it's 8:00 a.m. on the east coast. you take a live look at new york city. john heilemann and richard haass and from washington, d.c., andrea mitchell. >> we'll start with this morning's "new york times" which says high-up fbi officials were notified agents had uncovered a possible affair involving the new cia director but according to "the times" no one outside the fbi was notified until last week. >> i'm confused. so they knew back in the summer and the president of the yunite states didn't find out until 5:00 the night of the election? >> no, that doesn't make sense. but anyhow -- >> kind of strange. go ahead. >> they said -- >> do you believe that, by the
way? >> who are you talking to? >> that the white house didn't though until 5:00 election night? >> i'm going to let the story breathe a little bit. >> let it breathe like a fine wine. >> then we can analyze. >> don't open it until 5:00 the night of the election. >> and there were concerns over security breaches. some lawmakers are now calling for an inquiry into the fbi's handling of the case. the chair of the senate intelligence committee, senator dianne feinstein, says she found out about the unfolding scandal through the immediamedia. >> we received no advanced notice. it was like a lightning bolt. the way i found out, i came back to washington thursday night. friday morning the staff director told me there were a number of calls from press about this. i called david tpetraeus. >> and are you going to investigate why why the fbi didn't notify you before? >> yes, absolutely. i mean, this is something that could have had an effect on
national security. i think we should have been told. there is a way to do it. >> okay. so on saturday house majority leader eric cantor revealed he had been tipped off about the situation in late october saying in a statement, quote, i was contacted by an fbi employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain director mueller was aware of the serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security. >> so eric cantor knew and other congressmen knew -- >> but no one in the white house. >> nobody in the white house knew. okay. >> petraeus was scheduled to testify this thursday at a closed congressional inquiry about the deadly assault in benghazi. >> can't wait to hear what he says. >> and share the findings of his independent investigation. petraeus will now be replaced at the inquiry by acting cia director mike morell. but they say it's likely he will be called at some point. >> general petraeus for his
family and the families of those involved, but we have four dead americans in benghazi. we have a national security failure in the making. i don't see how in the world you can find out what happened in benghazi, before, during, and after the attack if general petraeus doesn't testify. so from my point of view it's absolutely essential he give testimony before the congress so we can figure out ben gghazi. >> nbc news has reached out to general petraeus and paula broadwell, and so far there's been no response. jim kelley and her husband scott released a statement to "the new york times" yesterday asking for privacy for their family. >> andrea mitchell, what happened here? the fbi's investigating this, a woman sends some -- first of all, tell us the nature of the e-mai e-mails that would lead to an fbi investigation. >> reporter: well, here's the situation. the woman who we have confirmed was jill kelley who was a
married woman in tampa who did some social and wounded warrior work in liaison complained to a friend of hers in the fbi so that's how this got launched. she knew very well a close friend who was an fbi agent and said she was getting these anonymous e-mails, more than as to e-mails, on two separate accounts. very confused because she didn't know who they were from and they were threaten iing. >> the nature of the e-mail, andrea, did the fbi have any reason to believe this woman's life was in danger or perhaps violence might come to her? >> reporter: they were -- this agent in tampa referred it to his colleagues at the fbi so it started as a local or regional fbi investigation in tampa, comple completely unrelated to david petraeus. the woman did not know that paula broadwell was the source. once they got into it, i think if you complain to the fbi about cyber attacks and you get dozens or a dozen or more threatening
e-mails, i am told, there is a predicate for them to look into this. >> you said threatening. you used the term threatening. do we know the nature of these e e-mails? were they, quote, threatening? >> reporter: she perceived them to be and they thought they were threatening enough to launch an investigation, and this had nothing at all to do with the players you know. they didn't know who was sending the e-mails. >> we don't know what threatening means. >> reporter: and i've seen -- correct. i have seen some supposed verbatim of these e-mails but i have not confirmed them independently so we are not going with those. but she perceived them to be threatening enough to ask for y fbi help. the fbi began investigating. it was only after tracing them back to paula broadwell that they apparently got perfemissio to look at her e-mails, which means they wept to one of the ports, the security ports, that grants the fbi this kind of approval. they then looked at broadwell's
e-mails and it was only then that they discovered she was getting e-mails from someone and it was an anonymous account and they traced that back to david petraeus. they initially thought that someone was hack iing into davi petraeus' e-mails. they did not connect him to broadwell. to the extent that they thought there was something else going on. but then when they read more of the e-mails, that's when officials tell us they realized that there was a romantic relationship. that was their conclusion. >> so at that point, when the y fbi finds out there's a romantic relationship, are they here to investigate government officials or were they here to investigate whether this woman was -- her safety was being threatened or not? i guess what i don't understand -- >> reporter: at that point it became -- >> "the new york times" raises this question, at some point they were concerned that maybe national security was at risk. >> reporter: exactly. >> but they found out it was not at risk. so the question is, and the
question is asked by an observer of the agency inside here, at that point why can did they report it to anybody outside the fbi if national security was not at risk and this was just a pray vat matter? >> reporter: that is the question that many people are asking. they interviewed broadwell. they interviewed petraeus and all of this within the last couple of weeks. they finished their interviews with petraeus and broadwell, concluded there was no further need to investigate. and at that point should they have shut it down? they felt they had to report it at least to clapper. but what is very confusing here is that there was an fbi agent, the one who knew kelley, who first launched this thing who offici officials -- law enforcement officials say acted very inappropriately and was quickly taken off of this investigation because he had a conflict of interest because of the friendship with kelley. and it was he who then went to -- he knew people in the house republican caucus. he went to staff and they then report it had to eric cantor.
at that point on october 31st it was now in the political sphere. so the fbi was no longer just reporting up the chain of command to their officials and to clapper. >> we get a lot of people rolling their eyes around this table. richard haass, first of all, i don't understand this investigation. so if i know somebody in the fbi i can get the fbi's cyber unit to -- if somebody sends me e-mail that i don't like, i can get the cyber unit to go after them. they launched this investigation. they find out it goes to petraeus. then they said, well gee, maybe national security is at risk. maybe there are classified documents out there. then they find out there are not classified documents out there. but then we still have to report this. but people on capitol hill, i worked on capitol hill. you know capitol hill. we all know capitol hill. this was getting around capitol hill. we've got a couple of congressmen that know. they're calling over. we're supposed to believe that the president of the united
states and the white house did not know about this until 5:00 election day? >> can i just say something? >> reporter: it was not 5:00 election day. let me just correct that. that's when clapper was told. clapper didn't tell the white house, tom donilon until the next morning, wednesday morning. the president was not told, according to all of the officials involved, until thursday. >> so we will take the time line one more day. so the day after the election it's still just as bad. i don't believe it. i do not believe eric holder and the justice department and the fbi and republican congressmen and people on the hill and this loose cannon in tampa, this fbi agent and everybody else knew about this and nobody inside the white house knew. guess what? i heard about something like this coming several weeks ago. don't tell me the white house didn't know. that is not true. >> there are so many more questions than answers here beginning with the question what
is the fbi protocol for launching an investigation of cyber abuse? if this is all it takes, hey, i know somebody in the agency. >> there -- the fbi would be doing nothing else than investigating her e-mails. so clearly -- nothing is clear here. apparently some sort of operating procedure favor was done for a friend to look into this. one question, what triggers -- >> let me stop you right there. by the way, do you know what i'm going to do today? i'm going to go through my e-mails and get about 20 to 30 e-mails that are far more abusive and threatening than the one this lady probably got and i'm going to call the fbi and demand they launch an investigation. >> well, we don't know what she got. i get your point. >> this is absolutely ludicrous. but what's your next point? >> that's the first one, what the fbi did did. then the question of the reporting. who was told when? who does the fbi have the obligation? there's a serious issue here, how do you balance personal privacy against national security? and what would be nice to know
is how does the fbi's behavior in letting certain people know and certain people not know take into account on one hand privacy. on the other hand the national security. at what point did they trip across this and realize who was involved? at what point did someone say, hey, this could be a national security concern because of plaq blackmail which is what you always worry about. then, though, you raised the question, why after you investigate it and found out there was no national security concern, why then -- >> and, by the way, let me just say, you are always concerned about blackmail. they brought the woman and petraeus in. so tpetraeus was no longer subject to blackmail. at that point after you do the investigation, you find out national security is not at risk, you then decide to move forward with it? this is what civil libertarians are concerned about and this is what bothers me. to go on this fishing expedition. they continue the fix expedition under the auspices -- by the way, the fbi despises the cia.
the interagency rivalry here is the most heated in government. and so you have the fbi taking petraeus down, a rising star in the intelligence community. the whole thing stinks, richard. >> my hunch is the fact it was general petraeus probably certainly somebody careful and wary and suggests some people to be slightly more assured than they would otherwise be. joe, i think that whatever the ratio of what we know to what we don't know leaves me really uncomfortable here. >> andrea, i want to ask you about the point brought up by senator feinstein yesterday and by many others about them not being alerted. do you find it unusual that the head of intelligence committees in the senate and house wouldn't at least hear about some sort of investigation even if it were on a personal matter given the stakes, given the fact it was the head of the cia and a potential or an alleged affair th that, as richard said, could
open him and the cia up to blackmail? >> reporter: i do. and she made that point. she will be on my show today at 1:00 because she is very concerned as is mike rogers, a former fbi agent. and he did not know. i was calling his staff and her staff on thursday when we first got wind of this and we worked all night to make more and more calls and they said, what are you talking about? this is crazy. >> wow. >> reporter: and so it was only after we reached a very high level that we even found out. >> i'm with richard on this, in the sense that i feel like the number of questions really outweigh the number of answers to the point it makes you a little bit wary about offering lots of analysis. to me one of the big questions or at least a big question is if you step back from this and put it in context which you started to do in the beginning, this happened on the eve of the election.
there's this political overlay to everything, right? so, again, among the many questions, there is a piece on the new yorker website that raises questions. amazing if eric cantor knew something was going on that he decided not to come forward with it. not to in any way -- there could have been great political advantage in raising this issue but a lot of people who knew to the extent that people knew, everyone decided to stay quiet and not just to suggest that people in the white house knew. i don't know if they did. but whoever knew, all the cast of characters who knew at a time when there were questions being raised about benghazi and all the stuff going on that could be politically volatile, on both sides, republicans in the intelligence community and law enforcement community, everybody somehow in the space of like two weeks managed to not say a word about this on the eve of an election. and, again, i'm obviously not positive it's a huge conspiracy. interesting to think about what the different motivations each of these people were because in our environment, our partisan
environment, most people seeing any possibility for political advantage would have race d to expose something like this, right? general petraeus was confronted about this two weeks ago, right, two weeks before the election. chose to not resign at that moment. was there a reason why he did not decide to resign? it would be embarrassing for the administration on the eve of an election? there's a reasonable inference. so many of these people individually have not yet spoken publicly about the chain of events and what their motivations were in terms of keeping quiet at a moment of maximum political volatility. coming up next, a new young -- >> so sweet. his first book, isn't it? it's great. >> will you give this kid a break? you're going to love him. he's out with a new biography that takes us inside the remarkable and complex mind, th thomas jefferson. jon meacham.
jon meacham joins us. he's a good kid. he's a good kid. he has a drinking problem. >> give him a break today. >> also, tom brokaw. first here is bill karins. speaking of drinking problems. >> let's not talk about that. >> partly cloudy with a chance of gyn. bill? some of us can still perf t perform, you know. good morning, everyone. we are watching some fog issues in the northeast. some airport delays are not too bad. the fog will lift shortly. heads-up, laguardia is running about an hour delay and baltimore is running about one hour. no reports of any problems at dulles or at jfk. now as far as other weather issues, much of ohio, indiana, kentucky getting some rain that will move to buffalo and pittsburgh, through west virginia later today. in the northwest if you are up early in spokane, a little shoveling. up to two inches of snow as you go through your morning and some of that will push into idaho and
montana. just some wet weather on i-5 especially near portland. the other minor weather story, it's cold this morning. lack at denver and minneapolis. through all of montana. this is the coldest we've seen as we head into the winter season. we got walloped with a huge snowstorm, too. many areas up around montana and the northern rockies. so your monday forecast, all of that cold air is heading east. enjoy one more wam day from boston to d.c. all the way down to florida that cold front will slice through later on tonight and tomorrow will feel more like mid-november. a shot of rainy and damp seattle. [ female announcer ] the humana walmart-preferred rx plan p-d-p gives you a low national plan premium...
since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪
we bring in a young, promising, up-and-coming writer and give him a chance to showcase his new work. we feature a kid out of chattanooga, johnny football, jon meacham, and tom brokaw joins the table along with john heilemann and a distract ed mik. let's start with your thesis. thomas jefferson may have been the most successful politician. thomas jefferson the philosopher, you were writing about thomas jefferson the
politician. he may have been the most successful in our public's history. >> for 40 years from 1769 until he left the presidency in 1809 he was constantly in public office, more importantly, i think even, from 1800 to 1840 for 36 of those years, either thomas ovjefferson himself or a self-described jeffersonian was president of the united states which is unparalleled. >> everybody in that run except tore his biggest enemy. >> john quincy adams. >> martin van buren is running as a jeffersonian. >> what you find out early here, though, this guy that ruled american politics for 36 years, actual actually didn't get elected until it went to the house. and speaking of 36, it really took 36 ballots to figure out whether thomas jefferson was going to be the president of the united states? >> that vote in the house was so close that joseph nicholson was a congressman from maryland who was brought in on a stretcher to
keep voting and his wife would guide his hand. he was a hanging chad early. it was 36 ballots. a ferocious campaign. you can have god and john adams or thomas ovjefferson and no go. what we bemoan now was part and parcel of the republic then and jefferson was the first opposition politician. >> was the 1800 campaign the ugliest? >> the ugliest -- they were running against each other and then 1800 -- >> i mean ever? is. >> oh, sure, sure. it was an existential race. they really believed the british could come back at any moment, which is an easy argument to win because they did 12 years later. and so jefferson really believed
the american revolution, which he thought of as a child, really, an organic thing that had to be raised and protected, he thought it was at risk. >> you said it almost rose to a paranoia. >> sure. >> his fear of britain. >> he was as concerned about britain as americans were concerned about the soviet union in the cold war. rough analogy but i believe it. everything that happened was interpreted through the prism of the conflict with britain. and why wouldn't it have been given that the world's greatest empire and we were this little coastal republic and nothing like this had ever worked before. we know how the story turned out. they didn't. >> what's so striking to me, first of all i'm so wildly envious of this guy who shows up every morning, writes columns, essays, and now another definitive back in thomas jefferson and he's still 12 years old. but apart from all of that, i think the great lessons as a
political observer is that the leadership that came out of those fires of trying to create a new nation and a new way of governing did create great leaders because they had to deal with each other every day. now the con ttemporary view of jefferson is this aristocrat who has fine wines and a wonderful house in the virginia countryside. but from the very beginning as a young man, he was involved in the creation of this country, this new form of government and in dealing with people who had distinctly different views than he did and what is not too often recalled, even by those who constantly invoke what our founding fathers had in mind as if it were a clear diagram and all they did was push a button and it happened, it didn't happen that way at all from 1789 until well into the early part of the 19th century. there was this enormous conflict that jefferson was involved in in what was happening with the
state legislatures, for example. merchants and farmers began to occupy those state legislatures so if they could protect their own interests, the aristocrats, the adams and the jeffersons, this is not quite what we had in mind. we thought we had an enlightened leadership. so we had a deal with them as well and out of that came the nation that we had today but it was a long and very tumultuous beginning and this aristocrat from virginia was down there at the table working on it all the time. >> an aristocrat and a sphinx like character, we hear how distant he was. we learn of a different thomas jefferson here, somebody that almost, like, bill clinton. se seriously. you said just craved affection, wanted everybody to love him. you said he flirted with men and women alike. what do you mean? >> well, he was a is seducer. he was a vote getter.
he had to -- you run campaigns. we all know people who have to win the heart and mind. >> portray him as a cold, detached man. >> margaret smith, the wife of the great republican editor in washington at the time, is sitting and we forget this because there weren't that many images around, she didn't know what jefferson looked like and a morning caller comes in. this very charming man and just telling stories and being brilliant and all of a sudden her husband walks in, mr. jefferson, i'm sorry i'm late. and her head explodes because she had been raised in this federalist family, taught this man was a great threat. >> she blushes and can't even speak. >> she has fallen -- one definition of charm is how do you make people fall in love with you without knowing why and jefferson had that. >> i never had that problem, john heilemann. >> the writer's question.
you write these books about these dead white guys who have been written about, you know, forever and a lot. in your books, people who have covered copiously. how do you approach -- like thom thomas jefferson, an interesting guy, thousands of pages written. >> sure. >> how do you approach that? what's the novelty? what's the thing you were looking for that gives you a point of differentiation? >> i think my sense is that jefferson has been seen as this detached figure. he has been -- he hasn't been very well served in the past ten years or so because of the growing popularity of john adams, of alexander hamilton and jefferson was left standing there. what i wanted to do and what i always do on this is how do you -- how can you read the papers anew? that is, put yourself, if you can take yourself and put yourself back in that moment. again, we know how the story turned out but they didn't. if you could read -- if you
actually read the letters, it's fascinating. something like 22,000 letters we have. and so -- and things hide in plain sight. and so what i wanted to do i thought the tombstone where he lists being involved, the declaration of independence, the virginia statute for religious liberty and the founder of the university of virginia is one of the great acts of misdirection in american history. he sent us to the world of ideas because he understood that the ideas would endure whereas the political struggles of the day were inherently controversial and might not stand him as well in terms of reputation. but what he did was he cut deals. he governed. he was totally devote d to the survival and success of republican liberty, but short of compromising on that he would compromise on everything. and he was also wonderfully the architect of someone tom knew from the beginning who also did
it, kind of reagan-esque politics of optimism. whenever they can, they will, jefferson said, and he always believed that you had to give people something to believe in so that their mutual concessions and sacrifices in the moment would be seen not as painful but as an investment. >> you're trying to rescue jefferson from intellectualism and bringing back being a politician. >> what i want to do, we don't have any other way to solve our problems except politics. >> fistfights. >> we do that. it's too grand to say but in so much as we can redeem politics, i think it's a noble endeavor and if we understand that even the greatest among us had to cut deals, had to get their hands dirty, then i think perhaps our blood prech you're will be lower as we watch the current drama. >> and if you can't have compromise you don't have pluralism. it's still an immigrant nation. we come from all over the world here with all of our varied
interests and someone has to be able to knit those interests together to advance what we think of as the common welfare, as he described it. when you raise reagan and jefferson in the same sentence, i can hear heads exploding across the country again. i went back and read some of the reagan diaries and he describes early on in his first term when they cut a deal to raise taxes so they can cut spending. and jack kemp came in and raised hell in the oval office. jack just doesn't get it. it makes me angry. we had to cut spending and the only way we could get there was to raise taxes. and the entire diary have that. a strict ideology, but he was cutting all the time. >> jefferson said the ground of liberty is gained by inches.
he understood this was going to be a long slog. and one of the things he at once we talked about him because he wrote so well and he articulated things so well. he's somewhat captive of these quotations. he's a little bit like winston churchill and the bible. >> both how much affection, how much coercion and then you go on to write something that shocked me. his wife died, he promised not to remarry. he fell in love. he was connect ed -- his connection with sally, whatever it was, went 40 -- almost 40 years. >> 40 years. >> he died on the fourth of july. the other thing important about
sally that is not widely known or remembered is she was thomas jefferson's wife's half s-siste. sally hemgs, his longtime enslaved mistress, was his wife's half-sister. >> explain how that came about? >> sally -- >> this is a very important moment here. >> no kidding. >> his father, the wife of jefferson's wife -- the father of jefferson's wife was -- had an affair, a liaison, with an enslaved woman. the product of that union was sally hemmings. >> yes, okay. >> jefferson's wife and sally had the same father. mrs. jefferson by a white wife and sally by elizabeth hemmings, an enslaved woman.
>> there was something he was attracted to in both women. >> we have no images. we know her hair was long and flowing. we know she was beautiful. what we don't know is to what extent did she remind him of his late wife? >> that's what i mean, yeah. >> so there is that possibility. >> i can imagine. >> there are a few deniers despite the dna testing and other things. my view of jefferson goes to your first question. he had power for art, architectu architecture, food, wine, for books, for knowledge, would not, i think, logically stop with the thing that is most sensuous which is sexuality. the idea he would have stopped at age 40 and never again engage in sexual activity, i think is strange. this is something that hides in
plain sight. he was a very active young man on this front. his best friend's wife, he pursued her. an early letter talks about sex. and he also believed sex was critical to your health, part of that early thinking on that. >> i think you just called thomas jefferson a randy bugger. >> you didn't have tmz and the gawker around. >> but you did have -- sally hemmings story was published while he was president. for those who think we just got partisanship, that scanndal jus came along, that there were attack politics and somehow a recent phenomenon, jefferson lived through all of it. >> what i think what this book does most of all, joe, is remind us that he was so utterly human and that's what we should
celebrate. for all of his gifts but -- and modern politicians ought to take something from that. >> and with the appetite thing, it sounds so clintonian, too. wide appetite that you are talking about. >> there's definitely -- the fact he is william jefferson clinton is poetic. >> the book is "thomas jefferson" by jon meacham. jon actual ly won a pulitzer prize and for proof we have a picture of the guy that was working on his closet when he got the call. there you go. coming up next, the bbc in crisis and mika with baby. this is seriously -- >> one of two. by the way, this is what happens when you have sex. >> this is more troubling. alex, do you know what you're doing here? >> all right, the bbc in crisis. overnight twists in the growing scabbedal involving the british broadcasting corporation. the details of that next and i think maybe we'll have babies cleared from the set when we return. into their work,
their name on the door, and their heart into their community. small business saturday is a day to show our support. a day to shop at stores owned by our friends and neighbors. and do our part for the businesses that do so much for us. on november 24th, let's get out and shop small. we create easy-to-use, powerful trading tools for all. look at these streaming charts! they're totally customizable and they let you visualize what might happen next. that's genius! we knew you needed a platform that could really help you elevate your trading. so we built it. chances of making this? it's a lot easier to find out if a trade is potentially profitable.
just use our trade & probability calculator and there it is. for all the reasons you trade options - from income to risk management to diversification - you'll have the tools to get it done. strategies. chains. positions. we put 'em all on one screen! could we make placing a trade any easier? mmmm...could we? around here, options are everything. yes mom, i'll place a long call to you tomorrow. i promise. open an account today and get a free 13-month eibd™ subscription when you call 1-888-280-0159 now. optionsxpress by charles schwab.
>> don't wake up. this is lie la. this is one of alex's two babies. there's lila and emma and they are perfect. i know, really -- i thought it was about us, alex. and why didn't you name them joe and mika? >> or at least tell them you did. >> they're absolutely perfect. how old are they, alex? >> 3 months today. >> aren't they perfect twin girls? remember when chris' baby was on the set? emma and lila are much more well behaved. >> so is alex. >> you actually dropped both of chris' kids. >> that one is awake. >> we were interviewing webb. >> i have something you should pay attention to. the most exciting thing you will ever do in your life. they never go away. you will have them for the rest of your life, and one of the big changes in child rearing these
days, as someone who has been through a lot of different passages, is contemporary children are in touch with their parents in ways that my generation was not. we left home and we loved our parents but we didn't call, except maybe once a week to kind of check in. and now the organic relationship, which is really gratifying in so many ways, and you share so many more things than i did with our parents. they were culturally different than meredith and i were. as much as we adored them and learned from them. they had different tastes in music. there's much more of a convergence. little commentary about that, about the formation of the modern family is brought together and it's across all socioeconomic lines, by the way. my father never wore a pair of blue jeans on the weekend because those were work clothes. and he would never put on a pair of running shoes, for example. or wear a baseball cap. and if he went out on a saturday night, he always had a tie on.
it's different. but, anyhow -- >> congratulations, alex. good luck. let's go now to brian shactman. >> i may not give them back. >> business before the bell. brian, what is the latest going on with the markets this morning? >> reporter: not a whole lot. i'm more inclined to hope tom is right. i just think about my kids growing up and never calling and not even liking each other. but that's fine. i hope he's right. listen, the markets are pretty quiet. it's a bank holiday and the bond market is closed because of veterans day. the stock market is open. futures are slightly higher. i don't want to beat the drum on the fiscal cliff so i won't. there's a lot of holding pattern waiting to see if we're getting anything in the lame duck and then where do we go from here. i wanted to touch on between the conversation on general petraeus, the cia director, and of course the little comments on thomas jefferson, are there's a bit of a ceo scandal at lockheed martin. their incoming ceo is now not
the incoming ceo because of an affair with a subordinate and he's getting a $3.5 million severance. the incoming ceo now is a woman and it will be t second incoming for a major defense contractor because general dynamics -- there you see right there the man who is no longer going to be the ceo of lockheed martin. general dynamics will have a woman ceo so two major defense contractors with female ceos at the start of 2013. >> fascinating. a bit of good news there. >> thank you, brian. and coming up next, a new report on how mandatory retirement is forcing many of the nation's most qualified pilots out of the cockpit. causes us some concerns here. the morning papers are next.
not in this economy. we also have zero free time, and my dad moving in. so we went to fidelity. we looked at our family's goals and some ways to help us get there. they helped me fix my economy, the one in my house. now they're managing my investments for me. and with fidelity, getting back on track was easier than i thought. call or come in today to take control of your personal economy. get one-on-one help from america's retirement leader. thor's couture gets the most rewards of any small business credit card. your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics, put it on my spark card. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working. wait! [ garth ] great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet?
fire bad! just have to fire roast these tomatoes. do you churn your own butter too? what? this is going to give you a head start on your dinner. that seems easier sure does who are you? [ female announcer ] new progresso recipe starters. five delicious cooking sauces you combine with fresh ingredients to make amazing home-cooked meals. ♪ ambiance [ female announcer ] new progresso recipe starters. your head-start to home cooked.
at 48 past the hour, a quick look at the morning papers. the front page story for practically every newspaper in the uk. as the bbc's sex abuse investigation deepens the head of the broadcaster's news division and her deputy have stepped aside over the weekend. the director general resigned after just 54 days on the job. the resignations come amid a furor over the handling of two separate sexual abuse scandals one involving late bbc star jimmy savel who faced accusations of molestation from some 300 people, many of whom said they were children it at the time. they have even accused shelving an investigation that would have exposed the popular host. and "the wall street journal," u.s. airlines on the brink of the most serious shortage of pilots in 50 years. a new retirement age of 65 is
going to force many senior pilots, some of the best pilots in the industry, and new pilots are going to have six times the prior flight experience of predecessors. this as some foreign airlines are paying more to lower american aviators abroad. that rule needs to be change d. when we come back we'll talk to tom brokaw about his thoughts on veterans day and veterans day weekend. [ male announcer ] this is bob,
a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes. new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes.
do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®. for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com.
welcome back to "morning joe. "tom, what are your thoughts veterans day weekend? >> i think there's a growing awareness i've been greateful for. we fought for too long with 99% of the country having no connection if they chose not to. they didn't pay an extra dime in taxes or gasoline pump, make any sacrifices at home. families at home with people living over there were living in constant terror. too many young men and women came home in body bags or gravely wounded for the rest of their lives. we have no greater obligation in the post election days than to knit ourselves back together again. there are a lot of tough issues out there. it will take everything we've all got and we should be grateful to them and this is the day. >> in church yesterday, the pastor -- the minister asked for
members of each of the armed forces to stand. a lot of seniors. >> yeah. >> all seniors and you could tell this was a moment and this church had been around since the 1700s when the puews were fille with veterans. a dying breed. this war making on our part is become more marginalized. that's why it's so important to keep reminding people about the sacrifice. what, if anything, did we learn today? [ male announcer ] when this hotel added aflac
to provide a better benefits package... oahhh! [ male announcer ] it made a big splash with the employees. [ duck yelling ] [ male announcer ] find out more at... [ duck ] aflac! [ male announcer ] ...forbusiness.com. ♪ ha ha! gives you a low national plan premium... so you can focus on what really matters. call humana at 1-800-808-4003.
so you can focus on what really matters. you a "stag provisions"rule" on edown every block, or a "hugh and crye" in every town. these are the small businesses of america, and all across the nation they're getting ready for their day. hundreds of thousands of small businesses are preparing for november 24, a day to open doors, and welcome the millions of customers
who will turn out to shop small. small business saturday. visit shopsmall.com and get ready. because your day is coming. he loves risk. but whether he's climbing everest, scuba diving the great barrier reef with sharks, or jumping into the market, he goes with people he trusts, which is why he trades with a company that doesn't nickel and dime him with hidden fees. so he can worry about other things, like what the market is doing and being ready, no matter what happens, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense, from td ameritrade.
welcome back to "morning joe." what we've learned today, tom, what did you learn? >> i can still put babies to sleep when they show up on the s set. >> and adults, too, tom. >> i knew that was coming. >> mika, what did you learn? >> alex's twin daughters are perfect. allison, congratulations. >> thank you. >> i don't know how you put up with us -- i mean them. allison, what did you learn? >> that my girls have never been as happy as on "morning joe." >> very good. oh, wow. jon meacham? >> i'm learning